Slashdot Mirror
Apple Rips Off Rejected App, Says Wireless Sync Developer
Haedrian writes "Apple is famous for going to absurd lengths to enforce its patents and trademarks. It recently sued Amazon for calling its app store Appstore. And it has publicly lectured competitors to 'create their own original technology, not steal ours.' Last year, UK developer Greg Hughes submitted an app for wirelessly syncing iPhones with iTunes libraries, which was rejected from the official App Store. Fast forward to Monday, when Apple unveiled a set of new features for the upcoming iOS 5, including the same wireless-syncing functionality. Cupertino wasn't even subtle about the appropriation, using the precise name and a near-identical logo to market the technology."
in this age of corporate hypocrisy, it amazes me how any company has fanboys at all.
Apple may have been working on this functionality for iOS 5, when Hughes released his version, but that doesn't excuse the arrogant behavior. At the very least, they could have brought him in as a consultant or paid him for his efforts.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
It seems his app violated the developer agreement from TFA:
that it did things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit.
It's not news that Apple devs aren't constrained by the same agreement as other developers. If you use private/undocumented APIs then it's common knowledge that you'll probably get rejected so why even bother?
Firstly, Apple may have rejected the app precisely because they were already developing the technology for iOS5 and knew that a syncing app would be redundant when iOS5 came out (and may have got into more trouble by allowing the app and then bringing out wireless sync technology in iOS5 when an app already provided the functionality.) Also, a third party app is not the place for this technology: it should be embedded in iOS5 as Apple are doing. Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app. Combining the two in the obvious way makes sense and it is hard to think of a better way of doing it. Again, Apple may have been developing this in house before this app and thus were right to reject it as they would an app that duplicates current built in functionality of iOS.
John_Chalisque
"Since the official rejection, Hughes's app has become one of the most popular offered in the Cydia store, with more than 50,000 sold in the past 13 months. Throughout that time, Wi-Fi Sync has cost $9.99, not including occasional promotional discounts."
I wish I could come up with a rejection that earned me a few hundred grand. He must be crying while rolling around in all that money.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
He goes on to say that they specifically told him that the Apple dev team looked at his app and were impressed.
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Learn about Photography Basics.
like how apple stole hardware tech from nokia, ericsson, etc and never paid them royalties?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
For the love of God, the name of the app is "WiFi Sync". What the fuck else are they going to call an app that syncs over WiFi?
For the love of God, the name of the store is "Amazon Appstore". What the fuck else are Amazon going to call their store that sells apps?
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol. If you asked a room full of graphics designers to come up with a wifi sync logo, that's what half of them would have made. Besides the basic shapes involved, they're pretty dissimilar in terms of design and color. Still, what do you expect coming from The Register. Didn't they just run a thing about how hackers can now email you grenades and blow up your computer?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I'm of the opinion that you can't "rip-off" an insanely obvious idea. Anybody with an IQ over 60 has wondered why they couldn't do this with their iDevice.
Let me save you a few minutes RTFA.
an app for wirelessly syncing iPhones with iTunes libraries
... is such an obvious idea that talking about "stealing" it is meaningless. It is also something that has existed for some time on other platforms - e.g. Samsung Android phones can do wireless sync of pretty much everything since Galaxy S. So he can't claim the idea.
Cupertino wasn't even subtle about the appropriation, using the precise name and a near-identical logo to market the technology
Let me clarify something here. The precise name in question is "Wi-Fi Sync". For an application that syncs your phone over wireless. Gee, that's one obscure name for this kind of app - no way Apple could have stumbled onto that by chance!
Now the logo. here is the side-by-side comparison. Now, this consists of the de-facto standard "expanding wave" icon for wireless signal (on Apple's version, pretty much exactly as it's rendered in the status bar), placed inside the de-facto standard "circle of two arrows" icon for sync. The amount of creativity required to produce such an icon, given what the app does, is exactly zero - it's literally taking two stock icons for two parts of the (itself obvious) name, and merging them together. If someone asked me to sketch an icon for such an operation, this would probably be one of the first things I'd draw.
If you really want to bash Apple, a meaningful point would be that a third-party app implementing such wireless sync had to use private APIs (which is what caused its rejection from App Store) - on Android, such things are easily implemented.
It's more the hypocrisy being showcased than anything. Apple are more than happy to go after a generic name that they just happened to use, and so did Amazon--yet, at the same time, they're doing the same damn thing with this. If they hadn't taken Amazon to task for using App Store, this bit would be pretty much non-issue (likewise, if they had chosen a variation on the name...maybe, 'Wireless Sync', or perhaps 'iSync' even)--then it would be simply a matter of whether or not Apple already had this in the pipe when it was submitted, and if not, if they took the idea of their own...and to a lesser degree, if they were already working on this or something like it, was it right to prevent a third-party from having their app out there being as they had no suitable solution in place themselves at the time.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
So we add another reason an app will be rejected; namely that the developer dared to write an app that competes with a future feature set.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I would never put any apps that I designed on the app store. You become just to dependent on how Apple feels and the payout aren't that good compared to what Apple gets.
One exception could be in the sole purpose of getting free publicity, but never as a source of revenue. Now, the guy has got all the publicity he deserved anyway.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Not if Apple were working on theirs first, which they obviously were.
There is such a thing as a truly parallel effort. Syncing over WiFi is an obviously desirable feature and Apple can be working on a feature years before release to get it just right or wait for hardware to become powerful enough to support something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I mean if all the Apple Haters out there think that Apple's use of the term "App Store" is too generic because it describes what it is and therefore not trademarkable, then doesn't that also apply to an app that does wi-fi sync which is called "Wi-Fi Sync?"
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with something that Apple does is branded an 'Apple Hater'? I think App Store and Wi-Fi Sync are both too generic to be trademarked, but I also have an iPad and quite like it. Just because you disagree with Apple's position on something doesn't mean you hate the whole company.
So if a wi-fi syncing app called Wi-Fi Sync is obvious, therefore Apple can steal...er...appropriate it for its own use without repercussions, then I would assume by the same token that a store selling apps called App Store is obvious, therefore anyone can appropriate the name for their own use as well. Apple, what say you?
To be fair, I don't think the term Wif Sync is trademarked.
[...] or perhaps 'iSync' even)
They're already using "iSync", they have been using that name for a long time. Interestingly enough the logo for iSync is the whole "spinning arrows" bit around the standard wifi symbol that this app author uses.
Yes, I'm implying that he basically combined the commonly used image for syncing with the commonly used image for wifi and bitched about how Apple "stole" his logo design like it was somehow unique and special...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Also?
Syncing the iTunes library (a heavily requested and talked about feature for a long time) via Wifi isn't even the interesting part of iCloud.
Yes, iCloud is a rip off of this guy's thing.
Only with, er, all that other stuff it does too, that his thing doesn't even kinda do.
Why not? Here in the UK, we're trademarked the color orange.
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Yes, I'm sure that's the official explanation that all you fanbois will buy up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
accusing someone of stereotyping while you yourself do the same is hypocritical.. so I guess I'll join in the fun.. gtfo you fuckin straightedged prettyboy and go flap your skinny little arms to the other faggots in your expensive coffee hangout. dont' spill any coffee on those messenger bags.
I agree, that's why I do not develop anything apple centric although I have looked at the possibility.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
The app was rejected because it called undocumented API's. A big no no if you want your app in the store. It's clearly spelled out in the agreements.
But it's okay for Apple to use them? I seem to remember Microsoft getting into some trouble over that.
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Really? The only way you know how to make money is put apps on apples iPhone?
Poor you.
Literally I'd guess.
In the US, it's the color purple that's been trademarked. It wouldn't surprise me if the rest were as well though.
Bonus points to anyone who knows which company actually holds the trademark on the color purple.
Reading comprehension is useful, as well as context. He wrote that in reply to "I would never put any apps that I designed on the app store. You become just to dependent on how Apple feels and the payout aren't that good compared to what Apple gets". On top of that, he never implied there to be one single way to make money.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Well, not quite. Apple hired Larry Tesler from Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, and he hired some of of his buddies from there. They were all unhappy because PARC had invented all this great stuff and Xerox wasn't doing anything meaningful with it.
So, it was no surprise when Larry and company produced many of the things they had pioneered at PARC, except better because they now had some experience of what worked and what didn't.
If you want to assign blame, then most of it should fall on Xerox for not using the stuff they had, and allowing their engineers to get unhappy enough that they left for a company that paid less but would use their talents.
P.S. I was one of those guys....
wasn't it fedex?
This is not the funny you're looking for.
You can you compare the code? Apple aren't going to release theirs.
Bonus mission - tell if if any shapes are patented, and which ones.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Nope, it's actually 3M.
And Microsoft took the inspiration from them. Things were different back then - if you saw a good idea, you could take it, adapt it, try to improve upon it - or just copy it to improve your own product. Before software patents became so valued, and companies wanted to make every word they used a trademark.
Today? Well, ieee1394 goes by three different names depending upon who uses it, because any company that holds a trademark would never use a generic word in it's place.
To be fair, the name of the app is "Wi-Fi Sync", and the icon is arrows in a circle (used for the Time Machine icon, for example) with Apple's own wi-fi icon in the middle. I'm thinking there's some sampling going on in both directions. Ironically, if Mr. Hughes' app hadn't been around, Apple might have come up with a more creative name and icon.
Apple may have ripped him off to some degree, but they may have already been planning this feature. As other posters have pointed out, also, they rejected his app because it didn't meet their guidelines, which is a separate topic.
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
I'm pretty sure Wif Sync is trademarked by some redneck plumbers.
does reading comprehension include the ability to comprehend sarcasm?
How surprising that someone who doesn't understand trademark law would post AC.
The first thing looked at by any judge in a trademark case is the "strength" of the trademark. That is, whether it is unique and enough to be defensible. After that, they look into the likelihood that the use of a mark by a second party will confuse the customers or potential customers of the first company.
"Kodak" is an example of a strong trademark; it was chosen because at the time the company was created, they hired linguists to come up with a word that didn't mean anything in any language. You can say "Kodak" anywhere in the world and people know that you're talking about that company.
Naming a product after the primary technologies it uses is effectively making it a generic product. Think "Kleenex" vs. "Facial Tissue". The name isn't defensible.
The logos are just stylized versions of the common logos for wifi and synching. Also not defensible.
Now, if Apple used any of this guy's code, they should be held responsible. But it sounds like this guy had an idea (that everyone had) a product name (which was obvious) and a logo (that was obvious) and none of those elements of this case are at all defensible.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Interestingly, it does... Normally I'd facepalm here, but I can't be sure if you were continuing the joke, so I'll pulling the killswitch before we reach the meta-sarcasm.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
I'm with you on the App Store thing, although to be fair, if you look at Google Trends for the terms 'app' and 'app store' you can see that while the term "app" was certainly in use before the iPhone, indication is that its use, and the use of the term 'app store' took off significantly after Apple announced that they'd be opening the App Store via iTunes. While I think an 'app store' is just a store for apps, I can see why Apple's legal team feels they have a leg to stand on.
Hypocrisy cuts both ways. The people who reacted most strongly to the Apple vs. Amazon thing are likely the people who are doing their best to call out Apple for this "theft".
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yet another article makes Slashdot, well after it has been thoroughly torn to shreds as bullshit on Reddit, Hacker News, and other sites. Why can't Slashdot editors take a quick look at other, more timely sites to see if a submission is total BS before approving it?
Quick summary of the problems with this article. First, people have been asking for wireless sync as soon as iPhone launched. It is idiotic to think they got the idea from this guy's app.
Second, Apple in fact implemented wireless sync for AppleTV, long before this guy's app came along for iPhone, showing Apple in fact knows how to wirelessly sync things with iTunes. The lack of wireless sync in iPhone was by choice, not because they didn't know how to do it.
Third, the guy's app actually syncs using Apple's sync mechanism and code. All he's doing is using non-public APIs to invoke Apple's mechanism over wifi. That's the reason his app was rejected. Using APIs that aren't in the documented SDK is not allowed.
The icon is an obvious combination of symbols Apple is already using.
The name is also obvious, since Apple is dropping the use of "Airport" generally in favor of "Wifi".
That's BS. It's the exact same functionality with the exact same name and damn near the exact same logo. If it were one or two of those things, I might be willing to chalk it up to coincidence or obviousness. But the whole trifecta? After Apple engineers have had exclusive access to his app and acknowledged that they were impressed by it? And after it's been highly visible on Cydia? (If you don't think Apple engineers are looking at Cydia apps, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...) To pretend like it's all just some big coinkidink?
No sir, I don't buy it, not for a damn minute. I think they were impressed with his app so much that they decided to add it to their own feature list to be implemented, turn it down to deny him money and reputation he should have been earning, saw it doing well on Cydia, and pushed it out as an "upgrade" so that everyone will be zealously adoring of how smart they are for something they should have had working from day one and that someone else smarter than them figured out before they could.
This was blatant abuse of their power as gatekeeper of the one and only official app store. It's disgusting, and while I'm usually not a fan of IP lawsuits, I hope this guy wins a million or three in damages for what Apple denied to him. He has provable damages and has them dead to rights for wholesale stealing his work. In the US, this would be an obvious violation of copyright and probably trademark too. Hopefully in the UK they have similar enough laws that it would be there, too.
And what the hell difference does it make if they asked him for his résumé? Did they offer him a job? Apparently not. If anything, that sounds patronizing to me, kind of like, "Let's dote some praise on the guy whose work we're going to steal. Maybe he'll just stupidly go away and not bother us."
And yeah, it pisses me off even more that these are the same bastards that go after people who have the unmitigated gall to call something iWhatever or offer to sell apps in a--gasp!--app store!
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Based on his sales through Cydia that 'tiny portion' seems to have paid off.
And I'm sure he used some interesting and impressive hacks to trick the iphone into wirelessly syncing.
Well **IF** he went the undocumented API route then there would be no conspiracy regarding the app rejection. Undocumented APIs are an automatic rejection, it may even be part of the automated prescreening process -- completely automated, no human judgement call.
the Apple sync logo has always been rotating arrows, and the wireless logo has always been the same , so logically wi-fi sync will combine the two items. So sue Apple, if they stole your (TM) trademark. As for the concept of Wi-Fi sync, what It was your unique idea? c'mon, it was probably on Apple's to do list. If they stole code, then you have a beef, if they came out with a similar item, well stand in line with all of the people that duplicate ideas, the world if full of them.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
But if he had been able to use the official app store? Probably have sold ten times as many. At least.
But if he had been able to use the official app store? Probably have sold ten times as many. At least.
Obviously, but given his sales through Cydia the idea that you 'don't get any money at all' if you don't use the App Store doesn't appear accurate.
What? Why should the MAFIAA get any money for a wireless syncing feature? This is not the iCloud we're talking about.
Nerdrage is funny... What term should we assign to Apple fanboys who think they are better than nerds?
Hipster
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Camera+ ...
Too bad TapTapTap still thinks Apple gonna play nice in the future, just read the last two blog-posts (1-year-retrospective and 2.2.1).
So sad.
"And in any fair trial..."
I think that pretty much sums it. Apple is a big corporation who probably has to pay an entire board of lawyers all year long. They can afford to go to trial, afford delays, appeals, so on. Us normal people can't afford to do that. So by default the rich corporation wins.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
No it's not. Just copying an idea is not enough it make it a derivative work.Ideas are cheap.
Don't be ridiculous apple, we are all building off each others ideas no matter how innovative we think we are. As developers no matter how many laws we try to make or how many people we try to convince of this illusion, software and ideas are not the same as property and they never will be.
It's common with Apple to rip of other people's work (and make it (look) better), it's what their whole business is built upon, steve jobs has never really thought up something really by himself, he always ripped it from others, he's a master at it...
1 - think of something obvious that Apple hasn't implemented yet
2 - write an App that sort of implements it
3 - wait for Apple to finally include it
4 - get major press coverage making out Apple as a thief
5 - Fame!
6 - Profit?
Insert
To be fair, we DID have THE best machine compared to anything else at the time (and for a few years after!).
Waiting for an amusing sig.
How many developers contact Apple before starting to design an app, while just in the idea phase, just to check if it might get approval? I doubt that there are that many.
As I wrote above, in order to sync the iTunes library you have to break the application directory sandbox rule. It's clearly specified, and to do so in a major no-no, and an automatic fail.
The rule is clear, and spelled out up front. It's not Apple's fault the guy decided to spend his nights and weekends writing an app that HAD to break the rules in order to function.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
> FWIW, silly policy rejecting apps that duplicate iOS function, but it is in the rules. I am not surprised the app was rejected.
I think you missed the point. The function is not available in iOS.
I'm an Apple supporter (and yes, I use PCs too), but this is just wrong. Apple has incorporated other applications' functionality into their own software, but at least in some cases they bought out the developer's company or hired him. Although in this case they said "send in your resume", they still can easily afford to compensate him and publicly acknowledge his invention. That would have been the right thing to do.
The "original" icon in turn was a ripoff of the Mac OS WiFi and iSync menu bar icons. If I would design an icon for wireless syncing, a combination of these sounds pretty natural, and Apple would probably have arrived at the same icon even without having seen the other application.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Reading comprehension can only go so far when sarcasm is delivered so poorly if at all.
Is it beyond plausibility that Apple was already working on wireless sync when his app was submitted?
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Three. You can distribute apps yourself.
"In-house Distribution
iPhone apps provisioned using the enterprise distribution method are not submitted to the App Store. In-house apps can be hosted on a website, file sharing system or simply emailed directly to users. Installation for the user is as simple as syncing with iTunes."
http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/business/apps/in-house/resources.html
Back in university days I took a course on entrepreneurship. The prof then said, "if you need to do something and you don't think its going to get you in trouble, don't ask for permission, just do it. Ask the permission later."
This is exactly what Apple did. They were plannig sync functionality (or liked what this guy was doing, which is less likely), so they rejected him and put out their version. This is what they needed to do. Now comes the "ask for permission" part. In Apple's case, this will mean paying off the dude in what will probably be an out-of-court settlement. This is just business. It's sad, but as a business, Apple could do nothing better. Jobs is no charity, and this shouldn't come as a surprise.
For the idealist in you, for most of the cool apps out there the dream payoff is to get bought out by someone big (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, IBM, whatever). There are many ways to get bought out. Settlement is one of these ways, and is no worse than a restrictive takeover.
"Apple" in the context of computers/electronics is not generic.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
Unless he sent them the sourcecode, I cannot see how it could be a derivative work.
- Raynet --> .
App Shop
What? How are those things in any way opposed? Can Apple not copy two things at once? I thought their mobile developers could handle multitasking these days.
The app was out a year before this feature was included in iOS. To make matters even more insulting, they've copied the design of the icon this guy created for his own app. They're spitting in his face. Try RTFA instead of trying to pretend to yourself like Apple are always good guys.
which is totally what she said
The Geodesic Dome? :p
which is totally what she said
I think you missed the entire point of TFA, which was an entire year before they announced their "feature" this guy had ALREADY submitted an app which they shamelessly ripped off for their OS, right down to the logo.
Now this is one time when I can honestly say I hope some land shark of an attorney really tears into them and costs them shitloads of money. I mean seriously, how much would it have cost just to buy the guy out? Not much I wager, instead they rip off the little guy and give him nothing but the finger. Well i hope that attitude costs them a nice boatload of money and this guy gets to sit back in the sun sipping his beer and lighting cigars with $100 bills by the time this is over. Talk about sorry!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
FWIW, silly policy rejecting apps that duplicate iOS function, but it is in the rules. I am not surprised the app was rejected.
Oh they rejected it because they were already developing the same thing? So a student programmer works on something apple are allegedly already working on, but this student actually finishes it a full year before the combined might of Apple. Yeah that seems likely.
I see no hypocrisy in either corporatism, or religion; it's a mutual contract: "I will endorse/pay you and you will protect me".
This contract implicitly reads "I will also try to proselytize others provided you kill my enemies".
The above two rules are a very concise and complete short history of the human race.
This is an obvious feature to put into the Apple feature set. You think the Apple devs were sat around wondering what to do and this obvious-thing-to-do-next app hits the appstore and they're blind-sided? I think not. They just don't want another app arriving sooner and stealing their WWDC thunder. It's their playground.
And as for stealing the logo, give me a break! Both the developer and Apple both took the existing Apple logo for 'sync' and the existing Apple logo for 'wireless' and put them together. Not only is that an obvious thing to do it's the *only* sensible thing to do. What else would a good designer do but leverage the existing affordance in both those symbols?
L
Perhaps this is my ignorance showing - but don't you have to send them the source code for review before you can be included in the AppStore?
I can't imagine that with all the talk about Apple's "secure, walled garden" app approval process, they don't do a source review.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Yep, because money trumps everything. Right on, brother.
I'm actually quite tired of this calumny. Xerox was well paid for the presentations (in stock, IIRC) and the use of the GUI elements demonstrated. No one "snuck in" or "stole" anything.
The Catholic Church has a nearly 2,000 year history, has been the state religion in much of the world for most of the time it's been present in various regions, and ironically, the Catholic Church fully recognizes the imperfection of its own members and clerics.
I'd also add that the Pope is probably also zen-like in his humility compared to Steve Jobs. Which is ironic since he's allegedly the Vicar of Christ which essentially means he's Jesus' regent on Earth and when he speaks for the Catholic Church, he's allegedly infallible.
The app was rejected because it called undocumented API's. A big no no if you want your app in the store. It's clearly spelled out in the agreements.
But it's okay for Apple to use them? I seem to remember Microsoft getting into some trouble over that.
Apple is not SELLING a competing product. Wireless sync comes with the (free) OS. If they charged for the wireless sync, this might be remotely like the Microsoft case.
This doesn't bode well for the consumer if they are blocking good apps as well as the bad.
I think you missed the entire point of TFA, which was an entire year before they announced their "feature" this guy had ALREADY submitted an app which they shamelessly ripped off for their OS, right down to the logo.
I'm not a developer but software like this isn't created in a week is it? I'm sure Apple has many plans for new features to it's software in the works and frameworks that are being built on the next upcoming release (iOS 5.0) that will enable future features that many could guess are coming but either the software or hardware just isn't there yet.
This is not a new or innovative function. I've been doing this with my Palm Tungsten E since I got a bluetooth signal for my PC way back when. Also did he copy the syncing arrows off of Palm? Cause that's what theirs looks like as well. Add in the universal symbol for wireless and you have a pretty standard icon for what many would come up with for wireless syncing.
Did you even read the link you posted? How do you plan on joining the "iPhone Developer Enterprise Program", which is "for companies with 500 or more employees"?
Just because Apple rejected his application, and then revealed an application of their own, which provided the same feature, does not mean Apple stole his application.
No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Apple must defend its trademarks, or risk losing them. Apple owns a trademark on 'AppStore' and amazon used just that. Calling it absurd is absurd.
He goes on to say that they specifically told him that the Apple dev team looked at his app and were impressed.
Translation: "Nice try, junior. Now toddle along."
You can't trademark a descriptive name.
That's rich coming from a company who's name is "Apple". How much more f-ing generic can you get? "Air" Oh yeah, they already have a product named that too.
Apple certainly doesn't have a stranglehold on using common words for product names. One only has to look to Microsoft WINDOWS or Google's ANDROID for some pretty cogent examples.
BTW, this article which WAS written by a lawyer, specifcally uses "Apple" as an example of a "common word" that could be trademarked.
Having said that, Apple clearly coined the PHRASE "App Store" before it became a "household word". Seriously, have you ever heard anyone utter the term "App Store" before Apple started using the term? I sure as hell haven't. And neither has anyone else. In fact, it was Apple that first started calling computer "Programs" "Applications", as far back as the Lisa. Seriously, when did a DOS or UNIX user call anything an "Application", prior to the introduction of the Mac? Same thing with Windows users. They almost universally used the term "Program", rather than "Application", well into the 1990s. And as far as the abbreviation "App", well, I think that we can thank the planet in general.
That's the difference that makes all the difference. Many people have used the words "Application" and even "App", as well as "Store" for a long time. But, until the iPhone App Store, not one person on the planet had stuck those words together in a "branding" sense. And so, that makes Amazon's sudden post-Apple usage a blatant attempt to cash-in on, and confuse the public with, an identical name. There can be no other interpretation. It isn't the fact that the words themselves are generic; it is the unique combination of the words used as "brand" or "product name", and then the subsequent use of that same combination of words in a manner carefully calculated to confuse the public, that constitutes trademark infringement. Our culture is replete with such trademarked phrases, each of which contain only utterly generic words: "Finger lickin' good"; "Good to the last drop", "Let's get ready to rumble" (yes, it's trademarked!) are all well-known (at least in the U.S.) examples of such.
IMHO, the only thing that would sink Apple is if they were stupid enough to not trademark the name "App Store". But, fortunately for Apple, they aren't stupid. So, what was your point, again?
Well, IMHO he ripped off iSyncs and the WiFi icons in OS X so he can cry all he wants. He might have made a good utility, but it was never innovative nor unique in any way.
Good point! It really IS the simple combination of two already-trademarked Apple logos!
Amazon Programstoreâ¦It's only ever Macs that have used the term Applications.
To make matters even more insulting, they've copied the design of the icon this guy created for his own app.
In all fairness, the guy named his app "Wi-Fi Sync", which is pretty functional as far as naming goes - definitely not much creativity went into the name. His logo is the Apple toolbar wireless icon surrounded by the Apple toolbar sync icon, stylized a bit into an oval rather than a perfect circle. Again, pretty functional and not much to "steal". It doesn't surprise me that Apple would pick the same name, nor that their art department would come up with a similar logo given the name.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Whenever I think of purple I think of Barney. So sad...
This is hilarious. Do you need me to provide links for Apple Mail accidentally deleting mail, or the OS X Finder accidentally deleting files? And what about the bug-ridden iOS Mail program?
If they hadn't taken Amazon to task for using App Store, this bit would be pretty much non-issue
...and you seriously think that, Amazon's decision to launch a service called "App Store" was not inspired in any way by the success of the Apple "App Store"?
If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
Is Amazon's MP3 download section titled "The MP3 Store?" (Clue: No its "AmazonMP3" - I'm betting they'd have got away with AmazonApps) Is the CD section called "The Amazon Record Shop"? (To be fair, they do say "Welcome to the Amazon Music store in the text at the top, but its not a title and there's no logo - again, they may have got away with this sort of reference to an app store). Is their "Toys and Games" section called "The Toy Shop" (No - they seem to prefer to use "Department" for this). Do they even use the words "Book Shop" to describe their original business line (I don't see it in on the current home page - its certainly not in the title or logo). Yet when they offer their software download service it was completely natural and obvious to slap an "Amazon AppStore" logo on it. Really?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Hold on there champ, put on the breaks. This was reported yesterday and after reading several articles on it already I think you might want to think this over a bit. Wireless syncing is NOT a new idea, it was not a new idea when Apple just announced it, and it was not a new idea when this guy submitted his app, so there is ZERO original thought on the concept from this app developer. Regarding the logo, you may want to look at the logo itself. It is comprised of the two arrows to designate syncing and the WiFi rainbow. You'll note that these logos have been present on Macs for YEARS, and it looks more like the developer ripped off Apple's logos rather than the other way around.
I'm not saying Apple is sinless in this exercise, they definitely rejected an app that they didn't have a problem implementing into their own OS later, so it seems hypocritical, but this developer is not the innocent lamb he claims to be. He's probably very pissed that his Cydia app, which has earned him about $500k, will soon see its sales dry up. I sympathize, I really do, but did he or YOU really think that wireless syncing was an idea the he invented?
Apple is not SELLING a competing product. Wireless sync comes with the (free) OS. If they charged for the wireless sync, this might be remotely like the Microsoft case.
The OS is free? Where can I get it? What? I can't? I have to buy something to get it? That doesn't sound free to me.
And by the way - wireless sync is not part of any released iOS version to date.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
>>>this guy had ALREADY submitted an app which they shamelessly ripped off for their OS, right down to the logo.
>>>
Apple == 90s Microsoft. I used to hate the unscrupulous tactics MS used during the late 80s through the year 2000..... and now I see Apple copying many of those tactics. Kinda sad.
So boycott MS.
Boycott apple.
What's left? I used to opt for Atari and Commodore, but they stopped making computers.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Madison Cube Garden :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
in the "rules" for the App submission. Apple has the right to reject if it's already a planned development.
Ah, so if if I come up with a good idea for a new iPhone app and submit it, all Apple's reviewer(s) need do is send a note over to the appropriate manager, who copies my description to their list of planned apps. My proposal is then rejected because it's now "already a planned development" (as of when the rejection is typed), and I've lost all rights to my idea.
Remind me again why anyone would invest their own time developing new iPhone apps? Yeah, they might not realize that a new proposed app is a good idea, and allow you to do the work. But even then, they can and do pull apps after they've been in the app store for a while. And then a similar app comes out later, with no acknowledgement (or royalties) to the original designer.
It's the music industry's model all over again. They pick a few successes to support and hold up before the rest of us as an incentive, and stick us with one-sided "take it or leave it" contracts that give most of the profits to the distributor, with only pennies per sale to the actual innovator.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Reading the comments so far has been heartening. I am pleased to see that most commentators are intelligent and rational enough to spot the BS and realize that this wasn't a case of Apple copying someone else's idea. That narrative just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Apple hardly does everything right, but this was clearly a case of an obvious feature with an obvious logo design. The creator of the app wasn't the first to think of it. The only question I have is why Apple chose to wait as long as it did to implement this kind of functionality--at present, the most plausible answer is that they needed a good reason to offer it: the development of iCloud was probably what motivated it, but also, improvements in iOS sync efficiency and Wi-Fi network speeds since the introduction of the iPhone also seems to have played a role. From what I heard, the unofficial Wi-Fi sync app was/is slow.
The OS is free? Where can I get it? What? I can't? I have to buy something to get it? That doesn't sound free to me..
Don't be an ass. Yes, the OS is free with the purchase of the device - it is not an additional cost. That is in stark contrast to the Microsoft case (which was the comparison in my post) - MS Office was an additional cost over the cost of PC/OS.
Apple has had wireless syncing in their products since the original AppleTV was announced in 2006. The icon is the same sync circle Apple has used for iSync since 2003, with the icon they used since 1999 for WiFi.
Four. You can distribute as a web app and hope that people pay you for it.
[Actual Citations Needed on the Following] Droidbois have been pointing out, with much glee, that they've have wireless synching forever, so it must be a case of selective amnesia to be able to think that Apple just saw this app and went "we must assimilate this".
? So a student programmer works on something apple are allegedly already working on, but this student actually finishes it a full year before the combined might of Apple. Yeah that seems likely.
Actually, it seems quite likely. There's are several conventional sayings in the software development biz to the effect that the time to produce anything (and the quality of the result) is an inverse function of the number of people involved in producing it. One form of this is the old comment that adding people to a late software project makes it even later.
Big companies like Apple (or MS or IBM before them) typically take years to develop what one person can write in a week or a month. This is because inter-communication between a set of people is much more difficult that inter-communication within one brain. And the team's result is often bloated and buggy, due to the same communication problems among the developers. It's a problem that every software development manager is quite familiar with.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all if a development team at Apple (who are probably all working on N other projects at the same time) should take a year or more to do something that a "student programmer" might develop in a few weeks. That's the nature of programming. We're good at building things whose details can be held in a single brain. We're not very good at building things whose details are distributed across multiple brains.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Looks to me like it was the guy who copied Apple's icons in the first place - it's an exact copy of the WiFi icon plus a copy of the Time Machine icon. WOW! He deserves to be a millionaire!
> FWIW, silly policy rejecting apps that duplicate iOS function, but it is in the rules. I am not surprised the app was rejected.
I think you missed the point. The function is not available in iOS.
Syncing is what is duplicated. Apple maintains themselves as being solely responsible for core functionality. This is what makes iOS consistent and reliable. It may violate some age-old nerd tradition of being able to tinker with every little detail, but most people tend to prefer things to work well. And complain all you want, but Slashdot contains just a vocal ultra-minority. iOS gives people what they want and is wildly successful for it.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. If this student had made an app with the same name, very similar logo, and same functionality as one produced by a company after having seen the company's app and its code. Do you honestly believe that the company would not sue this kid into oblivion for doing such a thing?
Remind me again why anyone would invest their own time developing new iPhone apps?
Because iOS is by far the most successful mobile OS to develop for.
But even then, they can and do pull apps after they've been in the app store for a while. And then a similar app comes out later, with no acknowledgement (or royalties) to the original designer.
Funny, your sig is applicable here. [citation needed] indeed! This isn't an app, it's core functionality. Apple has always maintained themselves responsible for providing core functionality. It's part of the developer terms.
Wireless syncing has been in iOS since the original iPhone. Over the years, they've increased its scope and functionality. This is a natural progression of that.
It's the music industry's model all over again. They pick a few successes to support and hold up before the rest of us as an incentive, and stick us with one-sided "take it or leave it" contracts that give most of the profits to the distributor, with only pennies per sale to the actual innovator.
Wait, what? Apple takes a single, simple, well-defined cut. There's no music industry model. No one goes into debt to Apple by making an app. No one gets fronted money to produce an app by Apple, only to find after production, promotion, manufacturing, and distribution, they are now penniless.
There's a bit of a difference between this application and itunes wirelessly syncing. Mostly the fact that your ipod isn't syncing with your computer, its syncing with the itunes music store and downloading your purchases as if i was another authorized device to the music store. I am also happy that, now, I don't have to ask Apple Customer support to let me re-download all my music free of charge when my harddrive died a couple months ago
He goes on to say that they specifically told him that the Apple dev team looked at his app and were impressed.
Being "impressed" doesn't change the terms for the App Store. You can't duplicate core functionality. Syncing the music storage is core functionality.
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Yes, it's a derivative work of iOS 4. Music syncing has been a part of iOS from day one. So has wireless syncing. Both have been expanded and updated over the years, and now iOS has (or will shortly have) the two integrated together.
To be a derivative work, the work has to be based off of something else. iOS 5's wireless syncing is not based off of this guy's work.
Gee, who would ever call an app that syncs over wifi "wifi sync"? And, who would ever think to use a combination of the wifi signal symbol and sync symbols as an icon for something that syncs over wifi? That is shear madness.
For all he knows, Apple rejected his app because it already had the functionality in the pipeline for iOS 5.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The icon wasn't the innovation obviously, just the article said Apple copied his icon. If he first copied Apple's icons, that's fair enough.
which is totally what she said
So they ripped him off, on a feature that was requested by thousands upon thousands of people the moment the -original- iPhone landed. Maybe everyone who bought a first gen iPhone and complained that it -didn't- do OTA sync should complain that he ripped off their idea?
Some people need to take their money and be thankful they got to play in that game at all for whatever time it lasted.
Remind me again why anyone would invest their own time developing new iPhone apps?
Because iOS is by far the most successful mobile OS to develop for.
Wrong. Android is the most successful. Citation is here
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
Hey old CPU dude! I used to have one of those in my first "PC" a VIC20. Actually I'd say of the two MSFT is actually like a big old sweaty care bear compared to Apple right now. At least you don't need anybody to approve your app on Windows or WinPhone as far as i know. Meanwhile i'm betting in three years or less you'll see OSX phased out for iOS in laptop form factor, then if you want to use any Apple device it'll be Steve's way or jailbreak and void your warranty. Oh and after the shitpile that was Vista they actually got one right with 7, shocking I know.
But to me this is a perfect example of the difference between the two companies. Even if, lets say for the sake of argument, that Apple already had a similar idea a brewing, if this would have been MSFT they would have simply bought the guy out as the bad publicity isn't worth the hassle not when the guy could have been bought off for less than the interest these guys make in a weekend. Hell MSFT would have thrown him a few bucks, offered him a nice little job, maybe made him an MVP or something, basically they'd have come out looking like nice guys.
Sadly as you have pointed out since Steve got sick the first time Apple has been copying old Bill and his "kill crush destroy!" bad attitude that made MSFT so hated in the 90s. Nobody minds if you end up #1 as long as it doesn't look like you are getting there by stomping on the little guy. MSFT caught hell for this very same shit over Stacker/Doublespace, but notice how many iFanboys come out to apologize for Apple? I guess that thing about Apple users brains and the brains of religious zealots being the same must have some merit, huh? Because be honest, if you replaced the name Apple with MSFT and left every other word the same the hate would be ass deep in here!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
ExeStore
ProgStore
ProgramStore
SoftStore
SoftwareStore
Amazon-Amazing-Multimedia-Web-2.0-Program-Store-in-the-Cloud
For the last fucking time, you cant compare all of android to just the iPhone, you have to include all iOS devices.
Also, in general iOS users are more willing to spend money on applications making it a much more attractive OS for developers to target if they want to actually get paid for their work.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
My question is, why hasn't Apple had the ability to sync the iPhone with iTunes over WiFi from the beginning? If anybody tried to patent such a thing, wouldn't we all be ranting about how obvious and un-patentable it was? I just don't think this functionality can be considered an "idea."
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
Just recently, Android has reached 100 million units. Also, just recently, iOS has reached 200 million.
Did you even read the first paragraph of your citation? It only compares Android to iPhone, and it only compares them in the US!
For the love of God, the name of the app is "WiFi Sync". What the fuck else are they going to call an app that syncs over WiFi?
For the love of God, the name of the store is "Amazon Appstore". What the fuck else are Amazon going to call their store that sells apps?
Appstore is a trademarked marketing term. WiFi Sync is the name of an app. Different ball parks. Not that I don't think the Appstore suite is ridiculous.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
May 5th 2010 to June 6th 2011 is hardly a week.
That's not really relevant though. I see no issue with Apple copying something obvious and useful. But blocking third-parties from implementing it and then a year later announcing precisely the same thing seems clearly anticompetitive to me.
Because while it's their sandbox and the rules are more restrictive that those of other sandboxes it is an extremely profitable sandbox to develop in, even with the restrictions. $2.5 billion-dollars-of-profit to developers (after Apple's 30% cut) sort of profitable. Clearly not everyone is running into a problem of "most of the money to the distributor, and pennies to the actual innovator" (seriously!? Do you even proofread what you write?!)
He goes on to say that they specifically told him that the Apple dev team looked at his app and were impressed.
Last I checked, that would make this a derivative work.
Sorry but no. Unless if Apple copied his code then it is not a derivative work. If anything, his icon was a derivative work of the iSync icon. Apple already had wireless syncing through mobileme for contacts and calendars (now iCloud) and they had "wired" syncing through iTunes. Wireless syncing just combines the two.
Apple was most likely already working on their wireless syncing and probably had to delay it a couple of times already.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
What else was Apple going to call WiFi Sync? And what other icon would it use instead of a conglomeration of its OWN two icons for ... guess what? WiFi and Sync! Imagine that?!
Said icons on the left and right of http://grab.by/akrk
It's not that fucking tool's icon at all. Jesus.
"Those who don't study history... "
Microsoft did this same sort of thing - it turned out to cost them a bit of money. See Stacker for a prime example. Hope Apple doesn't mind writing a few checks.
My point is that the app has existed for a while, yet also according to slashdot Android has had wireless syncing since the beginning, so one of them must have "been first" if it's a legitimate claim to call wifi syncing an innovative feature that could only have been arrived at by copying.
Apple haters were all over the iOS 5 update saying the feature was copied from Android. Now it's... copied from this guy? So did he copy it from Android?
Or is this another "it's an obvious idea so really is it copyable?" discussions that also permeate slashdot?
I'm just curious. There's no doubt it was a "me too" feature added to iPhones (although the underlying wireless sync ability has been there for ages - it's how the app worked, via undocumented API calls), but is this a case of someone deciding to paint your car red as an aftermarket feature and then complaining when the manufacturer offers red as a stock colour in the new model year?
How about Ama-app? Kindle-App?
But isn't your complaint the same hypocrisy? All the haters bitch that Apple defends the App Store trademark because it's supposedly generic, but they rip Apple when they use the term WIFI Sync, when it is obviously generic. Looks like the hypocrisy goes both ways.
Well, the reason the app worked in the first place was because it used undocumented APIs put there by Apple as part of their own, unreleased, wireless sync system. The ability has been in iOS for a long time (and Apple has used it in other products), he simply decided to add it third party-style to the iPhone by using what Apple was already planning to use in iOS 5.
I'm not saying Apple is blameless, but the rules state /. os very much on the other side of the semantic debate "it's buying something... but on the internet"]
* no duplication of core function (and this is "syncing, but over wireless") [compare to slashdot stories where
* no calling of undocumented APIs
Um, the app violated the SDK, which is basically Apple saying "we reserve that stuff for our own core functionality, now or in the future." And the Logo? nope, those are two of Apple's existing logos, and the industry standard for wifi and sync, so sorry college boy, go cry to your fraternity bros.
WP7 still checks over apps that are submitted, but they're nowhere near as strict as Apple. It's basic "nothing that's illegal/carriers don't like etc.", AFAIK.
For the last fucking time, you cant compare all of android to just the iPhone, you have to include all iOS devices.
Yeah, right, I have to include iPads and iPods as they are mobile too. Well, then, Windows is the most successful, as I see hundred of millions of windows laptop and netbook everywhere. And I think I have seen a Zune once. Just once.
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
they coulda called it WLANSync? Sync-ify? a billion other names that are not the exact same as somebody else's app?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Microsoft is not SELLING a competing product. Internet Explorer comes with the OS.
ps: are you completely beyond professional mental help?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Yes, when talking about targeting a platform, you have to include all the reasonable targets. iPod touches and iPads are reasonable targets (and Apple TV is not, even though it's part of the platform).
Windows isn't a mobile OS, it's just an OS, but this isn't an argument I'm not going to get too far into. Pick whichever label you want, but you know what I mean. Of all the "app" OS's, the ones for touch-screen handheld devices, iOS is about double the size of Android in pure installed base, and is the most successful one to develop for.
If you want to stick with the "Windows on notebooks counts" line, then iOS becomes second in units, but Android bumps down to third. As for netbooks, iOS has long since surpassed them.
If you want to look at Windows on mobile devices, look at the success of UMPCs and Windows slates/tablets. It has made incursions into the mobile realm, but not fared very well (to put it kindly).
Okay, there are many apps out there that does syncing wirelessly. So I think rule one is out of question: iOS didn't have that particular feature that was made available with that app, the app provided a feature that was not yet part of iOS.
So I think the only way it could've failed was because of the second rule you state.
Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
ps: are you completely beyond professional mental help?
Way to go with the ad hominem argument. You must be at least 13 years old.
Big difference. Microsoft actually used Stacker's code.
This is Apple implementing a similar feature *in a completely different way*.
Apple has done similar things plenty of times before. See Spaces, see Dashboard, see any of a dozen other functionalities Apple implemented in the core OS after similar-to-near-identical independent utilities existed. It's called "people want a feature - that feature is implemented by third parties now - but people want it built-in, so we built it in."
Apple will tell this guy to buzz off, and he will.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Now, explain how the Stac/DoubleSpace lawsuit is relevant to the topic at hand. And Apple doesn't mind writing a few checks. They do so all the time. They buy products, hire people, and license technologies they think will improve their products.
For example, they asked the WiFi Sync guy for his CV. They hired the notifications guy. The WiFi Sync guy just has sour grapes.
Nobody ever said Apple software was perfect or bug-free -- no software is. But you can be sure that their development has been far more rigorous than anything a student would do.
Lastly the offering from apple is not the same kind of wireless sync that the App author created, it Syncs not to a users computer, but to the cloud, along with allowing even iOS upgrades with wireless..
Incorrect. Apple is introducing wireless sync in that when your iPhone comes in range of the wireless network your PC running iTunes on it will automatically sync with it over WiFi, removing the need to connect to the PC with a USB cable. iCloud is something completely different again.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This is Apple implementing a similar feature *in a completely different way*.
If by "different" you mean "absolutely identically", yes.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
They also check that it doesn't contain any porn, that it doesn't crash, that it does what it says, no violence unless it's declared, no bad language...
Actually, they pretty much check for whatever Apple check for, minus a few things.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It is a matter of development priorities. Apple surely did not want to make significant changes to itunes before doing their planned move to the new (well now old) framework and 64-bit. Why do the work twice. So you wait on a feature that was not such a big frigging deal anyway.
And you should read the reviews on this turd of a program..
SO you have some evidence they used the same code. All the guy did was put a front end on their APIs and do some garbage on the desktop. Since his does not even work right, lets hope they did not use the code.
even though they came out with it over a year afterM.
Because in a company the size of APple a feature like wireless syncing takes ~2 years from development to delivery.
For Apple the figure is very probably much longer as unlike other companies they seem to engage in many more product iterations before delivery.
When you leave high-school and enter the real world you'll soon come to realize how long companies take to delver even what seem like simple products.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I didn't say they used the same code, because I would not be able to provide evidence of that, not having access to either source code. What I was saying is that it is functionally identical (does the same thing), in response to node 3 claiming that it does something completely different.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
"Name one phone before the iPhone that had random-access voicemail?"
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=CallWave+Announces+Free+Visual+Voicemail+for+Mobile+Phones%2C+Nationwide
most of those press releases say Jan 18
Iphone was announced Jan 9 and released June 29 2007 (per wikipedia)
so.. there!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
If nobody buys apps on other platforms because of Apple leveraging of their power, that would be one thing. I doubt you'd have an easy time proving that to be the case though.
People choosing not to for other reasons does not constitute a legitimate cause for legal action. The fact that Apple has control of the marketplace where the majority of applications are sold for a platform that does not dominate the market doesn't mean a thing in any meaningful legal sense.
Rod. If you believe they have, then as long as you have deep pockets see a first rate patent lawyer. My wife Sarah Crewe (then a designer) and I attempted to sue Jigsaw and a raft of companies who 'knocked off' her original designs in the eighties and nineties but gave up due to funding even when we were right. Even in those days it was £1500 to see a silk! Itâ(TM)s not only the principle, itâ(TM)s your living! Fortunately the law has been improved, though too late for us. Good luck, If you need help. contact me. B Cowell
You had/have to pay for iOS upgrades on iPod Touches right ... as an 'additional cost over the cost of Device/OS'. Please explain what 'stark contrast' means.
I'm talking about disgraceful, amateur-level code from Apple in programs as basic as their Finder. Your mention of "perfect or bug-free" is a straw man. You talk about students' inability to test sufficiently. Proper testing on Apple's part would have avoided these disasters. They are still shipping bad, insufficiently tested code, as if they either learned nothing from their past embarrassments or simply don't care. "you can be sure that their development has been far more rigorous than anything a student would do" - demonstrably false.
It's probably not amazing, but I would trust Microsoft today far more than I would trust Apple.
I have always gotten iOS upgrades free. On rare occasion an upgrade costs a whopping dollar when Apple legal is afraid that new capabilities will affect them in some SEC way. I have never been affected by this. I think it only applies several generations of OS past a device obsolescence. Generally, it is free which, as you ask for clarification is STARK contrast to Windows upgrade costs.